| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Top Containment (lbs) | 4.62 | 15.5 |
| Middle Containment (lbs) | 14.88 | 15.6 |
| Bottom Containment (lbs) | 9.25 | 9.00 |
| Cut & Weigh (oz) | 25.7 | 4.1–4.4 |
How we reduced a Companies stretch film usage by 68% while improving their containment force
Many assume that using more film means better containment. But in reality, piling on extra layers often leads to waste, higher costs, and little improvement in load stability.
At Impak, we have a team of experts who can conduct stretch wrap audits with cut & weigh tests, tilt and vibration tests, and more, to help you optimize your stretch wrapping operations.
In this case study, we will go over how we optimized a customer’s stretch wrapping operations with the AXIS Lean 80 Gauge Stretch wrap, in turn reducing their total stretch film usage by 68%, while improving containment strength, lowering costs, and future-proofing their stretch wrapping operations.
Challenge: Improving the stretch wrapping process for damage-free shipping
OPTIMIZE
We needed to find a way to optimize their stretch wrapping operations, from the type of stretch wrap they should use to and any additional materials needed.
PALLET 1 - TALL & IRREGULAR
Excessive amount of film, cardboard top sleeve does not match the contour of the product beneath it​.
Tearing and punctures appear to be from handling and transit, primarily forklift damage and abrasion damage from an external source (another skid)​.
Product appears to be undamaged from the transit to our facility. However, there appears to be some load shift of the smaller coils stacked at the top of the load.
PALLET 2 - SHORT & UNIFORM
Punctures appear to be from both handling damage and from the current film being stretched over sharp corners. All 4 corners had film punctures.
Punctures at the corners of the pallet are likely due to the dramatic inboard distance from the pallet corner to the product.
The difference between the forklift puncture and the corner puncture are visible here. One did not cause the other.
Our Approach: Testing, Auditing & Process Optimization
-
Step 1: Baseline testing
-
Step 2: Stress Simulations
-
Step 3: Process Optimization
To start, we needed to know all we could about the load containment so that we could provide a solution. That meant measuring the weight of the pallet overall, and each section of the pallet, as well as the cut & weigh.
A cut & weigh test measures exactly how much film is being used to wrap a load. When a pallet is wrapped, a section of the film is cut off and weighed, which reveals the true film consumption in ounces. These tests are used to identify waste and to set a baseline for improvement.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
The next step was a tilt and vibration test to see how both pallets would currently hold up in transport. The current methods of stretch wrapping proved to be insufficient. Both pallet tests resulted in containment failure. If the load had been exposed to any additional forces, damage to the product was certain, and the potential for injury may have been possible.​
|
Pallet 1
|
Pallet 2
|
Axis Lean 80 GaugeAnti-Slip SheetsStrappingOptimized Wrap Pattern
|
-
Step 1: Baseline testing
-
Step 2: Stress Simulations
-
Step 3: Process Optimization
To start, we needed to know all we could about the load containment so that we could provide a solution. That meant measuring the weight of the pallet overall, and each section of the pallet, as well as the cut & weigh.
A cut & weigh test measures exactly how much film is being used to wrap a load. When a pallet is wrapped, a section of the film is cut off and weighed, which reveals the true film consumption in ounces. These tests are used to identify waste and to set a baseline for improvement.
| Pallet 1 – SPECIFICATIONS | |
|---|---|
| Gross Pallet Weight | 1436 lbs |
| Top | 4.62 lbs |
| Middle | 14.88 lbs |
| Bottom | 9.25 lbs |
| Cut & Weigh | 25.07 oz |
| Pallet 2 – SPECIFICATIONS | |
|---|---|
| Gross Pallet Weight | 1226 lbs |
| Turntable Speed | 7.25 lbs |
| Turntable Size | N/A |
| Weight Requirements | 5.10 lbs |
| Maximum Load Size | 7.7 oz |
The next step was a tilt and vibration test to see how both pallets would currently hold up in transport. The current methods of stretch wrapping proved to be insufficient. Both pallet tests resulted in containment failure. If the load had been exposed to any additional forces, damage to the product was certain, and the potential for injury may have been possible.
Pallet 1
- The stretch film tore at the pallet corners on the side opposite the tilt.
- The wrap pulled up one of the pallet boards, exposing nails and a sharp edge.
- Inside the load, there were gaps and movement, which caused the load to shift.
Pallet 2
- The film tore at the pallet corners and continued ripping until it fully detached from the pallet.
- Once the film failed, the load slid off the pallet, and only the sled prevented full separation.
- The load shift was caused by low friction between layers, the film failure, and the load being set too far in from the pallet edges.
Anti-Slip Sheets
Strapping
Optimized Wrap Pattern
|
Our team of experts reviewed our lineup of stretch wrap and decided that the best course of action was to switch the customer’s current conventional 80 gauge stretch wrap to our
We also added to both pallets anti-slip sheets to inhibit movement, strapping to unitize the load, and optimized the wrap patterns for consistency and efficiency. |
Results: Reduced film used while improving load stability
The final stage of our stretch wrap optimization was to validate the improved setup in real-world conditions.
We rewrapped both pallets using AXIS 80 Gauge high-performance film, added the strapping, and anti-slip sheets to stabilize the loads.
Since the customer used a Wulftec SML-150 Turntable Pallet Wrapper, we replicated their setup in our warehouse. With the same machine on-site, our team performed multiple in-house test wraps to ensure the updated process delivered consistent, failure-free results.
After numerous tests, we visited the customer’s warehouse to have them try out this new stretch wrapping process on their machine, and it performed flawlessly. The results were consistent, stable, and fully aligned with their operational needs.
Pallet 1 Comparison
Gross Weight: 1,436 lbs
Pallet 2 Comparison
Gross Weight: 1,226 lbs
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Top Containment (lbs) | 7.25 | 20.15 |
| Middle Containment (lbs) | — | — |
| Bottom Containment (lbs) | 5.10 | 10.50 |
| Cut & Weigh (oz) | 7.7 | 3.7–3.9 |
Reduced Film Usage
Film consumption dropped significantly on both loads, Pallet 1 was reduced by over 84% (from 25.7 oz to just over 4 oz), while Pallet 2 saw a 52% reduction (from 7.7 oz to 3.9 oz). In turn reducing their overall film usage by 68%.
Heightened Load Security
By adding strapping, anti-slip sheets, and custom top sheets, internal shifting and product separation were completely eliminated. As a result, both pallets moved from being classified as unstable (C-load) to fully secure and transport-ready.
Increased Containment Force
Containment strength increased by 247% on Pallet 1 and by 30% on Pallet 2, despite both using dramatically less film than before. Not only were the loads more stable, but the improvements were achieved without added material, labour, or equipment changes.
Improved Safety & Performance
The optimized wrap process eliminated film tearing, corner punctures, and shifting altogether. The loads remained fully intact with no sliding or separation, reducing damage risk, improving safety, and ensuring more reliable pallet transport.
Contact Us Today!
Looking to Improve your Stretch Wrapping Operations?
Just give us a call or send us a message with the form below. One of our customer service representatives would be happy to help you with whatever you need.
110A Iron St.
Etobicoke, Ontario
M9W 5L9
Phone:Â 416-299-0960
Fax: 416-299-0961
Email: info@impakpackaging.com